Download citation
Acta Cryst. (2014). A70, C167
Download citation

link to html
The number of modulated structures with more than one modulation vector is small, and such structures often pose special problems in solving and refining. This talk will be concentrated on three such cases; The 3+4 dimensionally modulated cubic structure of digenite, the 3+2 dimensionally modulated structure of Cu3In2, the 3+2 dimensionally modulated structure of AuZn3 and the 3+2 dimensionally modulated structure of Se(Sn4)2K10. The three former cases are interesting because they are relatively weakly ordered structures where modelling is straight-forward, but the model itself is less than obvious to understand while the latter case appears highly ordered, but presents formal modelling difficulties. From these and previously known multi dimensional cases it would appear that higher order modulations are very prone to disorder. The image shows the hk0 layer from Se(Sn4)2K10.

Download citation
Acta Cryst. (2014). A70, C176
Download citation

link to html
The γ-brass Hume-Rothery [1] phases which adopt at VEC values near about 21/13 presently attract attention due to their structural complexity and challenge for the understanding of the underlying stabilization mechanism. Morton, by electron microscopy studies, revealed that the γ-brass regions of Cu-Zn, Ni-Zn and Pd-Zn do not only accommodate the γ-brass phase but also a bundle of structurally related, complex phases with lower symmetry than that of the γ-phase. A bundle of γ-brass related phases in the Zn-rich region of the Ni-Zn, Pd-Zn, Pt-Zn phase diagram is investigated. Their structures have been refined from single crystal X-ray diffraction data in the conventional 3D space group using supercells [2,3]. In the course of a previous investigation of the Pd-Zn system, the structures of two γ-brass related composite compounds- Pd24.3Zn75.7 and Pd21.2Zn78.8 have been described with the (3+1) dimensional space description (superspace group Xmmm(00γ)0s0 with the following lattice parameters, a = 12.929(3) Å, b = 9.112(4) Å, c = 2.5631(7) Å, q = 8/13 c* and a = 12.909(3) Å, b = 9.115(3) Å, c = 2.6052(6) Å, q = 11/18 c*, respectively) [3]. The aim of this study is to represent the structure of these previously reported phases in a coherent, modulated description to make them more readily comparable. A refinement model with a variety of modulation vectors allows to refine any intergrowth structure in the Zn rich region of the M-Zn (M=Ni,Pd,Pt) system. In order to gain an insight into expressions, cause and mechanism and structure-composition relationship for such phases, we also study the impact of substitution on the evolution of the structure of ternary derivatives of M-Zn composite compounds by the use of (3+1) formalism. For instance, substitution of zero-valent palladium and bi-valent zinc by zero-valent platinum in the structure of Pd24.3Zn75.7. This presentation will discuss about the understanding of the complexity of the atomic arrangement through the various modulation which correlates with the variation of composition of the binary and ternary phases.

Download citation
Acta Cryst. (2014). A70, C178
Download citation

link to html
Sometimes, model building in crystallography is like resolving a puzzle: All obvious symmetrical or methodological errors are excluded, you apparently understand the measured patterns in 3D, but the structure solution and/or refinement is just not working. One such nerve-stretching problem arises from metrically commensurate structures (MCS). This expression means that the observed values of the components of the modulation wave vectors are rational by chance and not because of a lock-in. Hence, it is not a superstructure - although the boundaries between the two descriptions are blurry. Using a superstructure model for a MCS decreases the degrees of freedom, and forces the atomic arrangement to an artificial state of ordering. Just imagine it as looking at a freeze frame from a movie instead of watching the whole film. The consequences in structure solution and refinement of MCS are not always as dramatically as stated in the beginning. On the contrary, treating a superstructure like a MCS might be a worthwhile idea. Converting from a superstructure model to a superspace model may lead to a substantial decrease in the number of parameters needed to model the structure. Further, it can permit for the refinement of parameters that the paucity of data does not allow in a conventional description. However, it is well known that families of superstructures can be described elegantly by the use of superspace models that collectively treat a whole range of structures, commensurate and incommensurate. Nevertheless, practical complications in the refinement are not uncommon. Instances are overlapping satellites from different orders and parameter correlations. Notably, MCS occur in intermetallic compounds that are important for the performance of next-generation electronic devices. Based on examples of their (pseudo)hexagonal 3+1D and 3+2D structures, we will discuss the detection and occurrence of MCS as well as the benefits and limitations of implementing them artificially.
Follow Acta Cryst. A
Sign up for e-alerts
Follow Acta Cryst. on Twitter
Follow us on facebook
Sign up for RSS feeds